I don't think it will drive insurance companies out of business. Insurance companies have been living high on the hog for decades. Taking in premiums and then not paying out. A government plan will give them some competition and maybe (hopefully) make them better.

I think I have said it before but I have heath insurance through my husbands employer.. family plan paid 100% by employer. Heath, dental and vision. We are very, very fortunate. If this goes through and his employer decides to let his employees go it alone and pay for their own insurance we will deal with it. Like I said, we are lucky and I will not be one to stand in the way of another getting good, affordable heath insurance. I just cant do the eff you! I got mine. That statement only applies to those who have the audacity to get medicaid or medicare and want to b***h about "socialized" heath care.

Logged

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far~ ruminations

AHD - in answer to your question -While I have never been seriously ill beyond the occasional bout with the flu, both my children have struggled with various health problems, including one daughter with chronic headaches. We have excellent coverage through my wife's job (Blue Cross Blue Shield) which her employer pays half of and we the other half. We more than get back what we put into the premiums in prescription meds alone each year. However, about three years ago we were withoug coverage for several months while my wife changed jobs and sure enough, Rachel had to have a CAT scan. We had to scrape a bit, but I paid cash for it.

My specific fear is that having a government insurance program whose premiums will be taken out of our tax dollars, and whose costs will never be allowed to increase signficantly, will drive private insurers out of business, and I will have trade the excellent coverage we have now for a federal bureaucracy with the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS.

I don't know what your qualms are with the post office. I've always found them to be an excellent organization. They deliver letters across the country for less than half a dollar. The major things the other shippers provide is inferior service (fewer days delivered) and worse treatment of employees (Postal employees are treated very well). The Post Office is also generally cheaper for small packages.

In any case, private insurers are known to be inefficient (which is why part of the original health care bill was restrictions on percentage of profit from premiums), and if anyone has less of a heart than the private insurance companies, I'd be interested to hear about it. If there was socialized medicine, we'd be switching from insurance middle men to government middle men. I prefer the one that DOESN'T have an incentive to deny my claims.

It is in every single country that has socialized medicine. That's why the wealthy Brits and Canadians come to America for elective surgeries and cancer treatments.

I think that socialism in all its forms slowly erodes personal freedoms and liberties, entrenches bureacracies, and subsidizes mediocrity in all things. Our members from Canada and Britain may enjoy the system they have, but it is the only system they have ever known, so I think it safe to say that they don't really have a fair basis of comparison.

Liberty is a dangerous thing. It involves risk, especially the risk of failure, both economic and personal. But that being said, I prefer my liberty with its risks to any kind of soul-sucking, benevolent despotism. I give a third of my income to the government every year as it is. They say this program won't increase taxes. I flat out don't believe that. Every entitlement every created has cost more than projected. And the true horror of all entitlements is that, once created, they can not only never be gotten rid of - they can never be reduced! No matter how much they cost, once the government starts "giving away" something, the public will demand more and more and vote for those who promise them more because they are simply too dumb to realize that the government can never give you anything without first taking it away from someone else - and one day there will not be enough taxpayers to support the entitlements. Then the whole system will collapse under its own weight.

Far better to live in liberty to begin with, paying for the treatment your own illnesses, helping those in need as you can, and keeping the wherewithal to do so out of the hands of government bureacrats..

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts! Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence. That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

If there was socialized medicine, we'd be switching from insurance middle men to government middle men. I prefer the one that DOESN'T have an incentive to deny my claims.

What on Earth makes you think a government-run health care system would not have an incentive to deny claims? The system has to be run according to a business model: the incentive is to minimize costs to the system. My own family physician here in Canada has consistently actively discouraged me from pursuing treatment - or even diagnosis - of any condition that will not KILL me. I had a 'frozen shoulder' which prevented me from using my left arm. I could not work, and it was painful, but my doctor blew it off until I was very insistent, whereupon she got huffy with me and referred me to an orthopaedic surgeon - who examined, diagnosed and prescribed treatment. Diagnosis and treatment I would not have got had I not demanded it. (And treatment that I PAID cash for BTW: the ortho advised me that the physio that my gov't coverage would provide - at the local hospital - would not follow his instructions and likely would not be as effective as a result. So I opted for a private physio and was functional again in record time.)

There was a news story on tonight about a child from Vietnam who came to Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital for treatment (removal) of a huge tumor on his face. The surgeons there refused to treat him, saying that the tumor was not life-threatening. (Hospital policy?) The child was taken to Boston where he was operated upon. Paid for by donations as I understand it.

Our members from Canada and Britain may enjoy the system they have, but it is the only system they have ever known, so I think it safe to say that they don't really have a fair basis of comparison.

I may well be the exception given my age, but it is not the only system I have known. I well remember when our current system started up: my father was a country family physician and he was appallled at the guidelines he was given pertaining to such things as how much time he was allowed to spend on each patient and how many he was allowed to see in a day. Basically it came down to ensuring each Dr was getting a similar income per unit of time. Putting them on the same salary. My father had been charging people according to their ability to pay: chickens, hams, turkeys, sacks of potatoes and baskets of vegetables used to show up at our back door when he had chosen *not* to charge certain patients. With the advent of socialized medicine this option was taken out of his hands: He HAD TO charge each and every patient he saw. The system required it of him. Dad finally moved to the U.S. so he could practice medicine the way be felt he should. Did he make more money in the States? Yes. Was that why he moved? No. He objected to being hindered in delivering patient care: he did not feel bureaucrats had any place making judgement calls in medicine.

What on Earth makes you think a government-run health care system would not have an incentive to deny claims? The system has to be run according to a business model: the incentive is to minimize costs to the system. My own family physician here in Canada has consistently actively discouraged me from pursuing treatment - or even diagnosis - of any condition that will not KILL me.

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts! Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence. That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

People certainly die due to a lack of health care - often because they delay treatment due to costs (or can't get screenings and treatments that prevent disease), or because they die young or younger due to an inability to pay for certain procedures that are not related to something immediately life threatening. Estimates vary considerably on that, with the high figure being in excess of 40,000 a year. You might put more stock in the low figure - something like 20,000 a year.

You'd be right that nobody dies due to a lack of emergency treatment - but often, that's not soon enough.

Quote

And the true horror of all entitlements is that, once created, they can not only never be gotten rid of - they can never be reduced!

Well, that's certainly proven to NOT be the case. Many forms of welfare were quite significantly reduced in 1996. Millions fewer people are on welfare now than before the reforms of that year. It's also worth noting that socialized medicine has been cut back in various ways in some countries (UK and Canada included, IIRC), usually due to rising costs.

Overall though, indy, I can respect your position on this. There are some other issues I have a similar viewpoint on. I think I can state safely that, even if socialized medicine could somehow be proven that if implemented in the USA, it would be better in almost every way than our current system, you'd still be against it, right?

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts! Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence. That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

HA! You seriously think private companies don't ration care in order to maximize profits. If you hate the American government so bad move to France.

Source? Sounds an awful lot like the false story about the Astronaut pen.

Its called Bureaucracy... The story is a joke about how government create jobs (which is often true).

Next time listen to the government when they talk about cutting corners to make the budget, they are always saying they need to lay off the police, the fireman, helpful services (aka the night watchman) but you never hear about the cutting or reducing the interlocking Bureaucracy.

Quote

Skull, I might add you're pretty much putting yourself in line with 9/11 Truthers with some of your mass conspiracy theory statements. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it would me.

Its all about motive. And the reason behind the health care bill is all about personal survival, an attempt to lock the party into power for another 40 years. The only reason why its not working is Obama's mouth, the rep/sen dumping thousands of pages into the bill days before its voted on (Nobody knows whats inside and yet they are voting for it) and the back room dealings to get the bill pushed.

Quote

Quote

Also, the Government can issue stiff fines like Jail Time for non-payment

Yeah, for not paying taxes. They can already do that if you avoid taxes. Remember Al Capone's 11 years?

The idea behind of paying your taxes is so government can function and not paying your taxes is preventing government to function.

Personally, I always thought it was a BS reason to put Al Capone away... But they did, although it seems that nobody cares about Tax Evasion today (otherwise some of Obama's cabinet members should be seving 11 years too...)

You know, "Dude", that is a very old and jejune debating technique, but in this case, it is also just flat out illogical. Why would I protest socialism in the U.S. by moving to a country where it has completely taken over?

I mean, if I said, "If you hate liberty so much, why don't you move to North Korea?" that would make sense, because there is no liberty whatsoever there.

Private companies do ration care to some extent, however, competition between them insures that eventually, the customer will find a provider to pay for what he wants. And there is always the option, for those who can afford it, of paying for it yourself.

American health care, in overall quality, is the finest in the world. We lead the world in the discovery of new medicines and new treatments precisely because we have a private, for-profit system.

No, I don't hate our governmnet. I recognize that, in their own big, clumsy, Federal way, they are trying to help. But they are woefully inept and have an incredibly high propensity for waste.

Also, we cannot pay for the entitlements we already have. Creating more is simply going to bankrupt the entire country, and then ALL government benefits will be lost.

As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money."

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts! Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence. That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

HA! You seriously think private companies don't ration care in order to maximize profits. If you hate the American government so bad move to France.

You do know the constitution was created by the founding fathers to protect the citizens from government... (it tells what government cannot do)

We dont hate the American Government... We just dont trust them!

There is a reason why our founding fathers gave us the right to firearms and its not for criminal protection and hunting, its in case government decides to go against the American people...

Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.

I simply don't believe it would be better, and I suspect it would be unconstitutional. So yes, I would most likely oppose it regardless of whatever rosy forecast they had for it.

I appreciate your respect of my position.

And if some people are dying for lack of certain kinds of preventive care under our system, is there any way to guarantee they won'd die because care is rationed under a government system?

I have heard that cancer deaths in the UK are about 15% or so higher than in the U.S. because expensive treatment options are not pursued.

Funny, I keep hearing Obama and the Dems keep saying that people are dying in America because they dont have Health Care... Obama and the Dems: If thats true please source it?

Also if its SO necessary to push the Health Care to save those dying people then why the Health Care Program will not be active until after 2012? [What's the point of the rush?]

Also if its SO necessary to push the Health Care to save those dying people (again) then why are they stoping the push on Health Care because one man prevents the "super majority" [So its gets Filibuster... if the bill is so FREAKN good then they could try to pass it... The problem about the Filibuster it opens a debate to the bill, it doesnt kill the bill but it informs the public whats INSIDE the bill and that is why they are not pushing the Health Care bill, because they dont want US (the American People) to know what's inside the bill.... Oh, those poor dying Americans how they are easly forgotten after one month.]

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate... and choosing not to.

C'mon now man let's be honest, you're the one who pointed out "wealthy" Brits and Canadians coming to the USA for treatments. I think it's ironic that "wealthy" Americans go to Germany and Switzerland.

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate... and choosing not to.

But its a freedom for us to choose.

Quote

C'mon now man let's be honest, you're the one who pointed out "wealthy" Brits and Canadians coming to the USA for treatments. I think it's ironic that "wealthy" Americans go to Germany and Switzerland.

Hehe because the German and the Swiss has the "best" health care... [ok i'm being sarcastic]

I'm not sure (and I'm not going to ask you to source it) but I'm going to take a wild guess based on the nature of the beast... It's because Germany and Switzerland has a different FDA regulations compaired to America and people are willing to pay for the "risk" when it comes to life and death. The same is true when "wealthy" people go to Mexico for treatments.

It doesnt mean the German, the Swiss and Mexico has a better system, its just their testing regulations is much different and people are willing to take the risk when it comes to life or death.